Evans v. Holt et al, No. 1:2017cv05508 - Document 15 (N.D. Ga. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION: The Court will not recede from its previous ruling, and DENIES what the Court has construed as Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Reconsideration. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's 14 Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Orinda D. Evans on 5/16/2018. (sap)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Evans v. Holt et al Doc. 15 ti.s,D.c. i mam IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGlWAY 1 7 2018 ATLANTA DIVISION PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.C. § 1983 JONATHAN LEE EVANS GDC No. 1018345, Plaintiff, V CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-5508-ODE . AHMED HOLT, Warden; e t a l . , Defendants. ORDER AND OPINION T h i s m a t t e r i s b e f o r e t h e Court on what t h e C l e r k has s t y l e d as P l a i n t i f f ' s p r o se motion f o r an i n j u n c t i o n [Doc. 13] and motion f o r appointment o f counsel [Doc. 1 4 ] . On February 22, 2018, M a g i s t r a t e Judge J u s t i n S. Anand recommended t h a t t h e Court d i s m i s s complaint [Doc. 1] pursuant t o 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because Plaintiff's Plaintiff had f a i l e d t o s t a t e a c o g n i z a b l e c l a i m under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 4) . T h i s Court adopted Judge Anand's recommendation over what i t c o n s t r u e d as P l a i n t i f f ' s objections [Docs. 7, 8, 9 ] , judgment d i s m i s s i n g t h e case on A p r i l 4, 2018. (Doc. 10) . and e n t e r e d T h i s case i s now c l o s e d . P l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r an i n j u n c t i o n appears t o be an a t t e m p t by P l a i n t i f f t o ask t h i s Court f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f i t s judgment. "A m o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n cannot be used ' t o r e l i t i g a t e o l d m a t t e r s , r a i s e argument, o r p r e s e n t evidence t h a t c o u l d have been r a i s e d p r i o r t o t h e e n t r y o f judgment.'" (11th C i r . 2010) ( q u o t i n g Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 740 Michael Linet, I n c . v. V i l l a g e o f W e l l i n g t o n , 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ) . Here, Plaintiff m e r e l y a t t e m p t s t o l i t i g a t e o l d m a t t e r s by r e i t e r a t i n g t h a t he has been i n j u r e d by o t h e r inmates and t h a t h i s p r o p e r t y was t a k e n from Dockets.Justia.com him. (Doc. 1 3 ) . P l a i n t i f f a l s o now a t t e m p t s t o r a i s e a l l e g a t i o n s i n which he c l a i m s t h a t t h e pharmacy i s " a l t e r i n g " and/or " c r u s h i n g " h i s p r e s c r i p t i o n m e d i c a t i o n s so t h a t he cannot see what a c t u a l m e d i c a t i o n he i s t a k i n g - - a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t he never r a i s e d p r i o r t o t h e e n t r y o f judgment d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t he c o u l d have done so. 1). (Doc. 13 a t A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e Court w i l l n o t recede from i t s p r e v i o u s r u l i n g , and DENIES what t h e Court has c o n s t r u e d as P l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n [Doc. 1 3 ] . I T IS FURTHER ORDERED t h a t P l a i n t i f f ' s m o t i o n f o r appointment o f counsel [Doc. 14] i s DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED t h i s day o f May, 2018. O R T N D A D. E V A N S UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T -2- JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
